Definition of God- By God, I shall understand God as a omnipresent being that has infinite essence, and is the first-cause of everything. [1]

a.) Argument from Ontology

P1. God is infiniteP2. The negation of God's existence means that God is finite, which is absurdP3. Henceforth God exists objectively

P1. It is analytical from the definition of God that God is infinite.

P2. Infinity is the greatest attribute to any being ever. Infinity is defined as being the greatest of all who share such attributes (in this case, existence) i.e. something that is infinite cannot be limited by anyone of it's kind. Then let us assert that a God exists in the intellect: this then, by the negation of God's existence, would be the negation of his infinitude, for God is henceforth limited by the physical, which shows that there is something greater than God, which via the first proposition is wholly absurd to think.

P3. Henceforth, since God cannot exist only in the intellect for that reduces the nature of his infinitude, then necessarily exists objectively.

b.) Argument from Existence

P1. I necessarily existP2. To exist means to exist in something that is necessarily omnipresentP3. God is omnipresent P4. Henceforth, God necessarily exists

P1. This is ultimately the most controversial premiss of this argument, for idealism is still an important influence in many societies, and especially on this website. Then let us first assert that we can "doubt" that we exist. This doubt then necessarily leads to an object that doubts of the existence of the object, and it would be wholly circular to say "I think that I do not exist" for then this "I" would not exist to doubt the existence of this "I" too. Hence, it follows that "I" exist, and that is certain. I shall not attempt to prove the existence of other minds, as I do not see that as especially needed in this debate. [2]

P2. Then let us assert that something omnipresent does not exist: then analytically, the object would not be omnipresent. Hence, our existence would necessarily be included in a being that is omnipresent.

P3. This is developed from the definition of God

P4. Henceforth, the existence of God can be implied.

c.) Arguments from Cause

P1. Everything has a first causeP2. The first cause is God

P1. Conceive a thing that does not have a cause, except for the first cause: that is impossible. Henceforth, it must be argued that something must have caused everything, including casaulity. For how can something come from nothing, if the necessary tools for something "coming into existence" has not been made yet. Hence, we can necessarily denote that something must have caused everything.

P2. Infinity is the greatest attribute to any being ever. Infinity is defined as being the greatest of all who share such attributes (in this case, existence) i.e. something that is infinite cannot be limited by anyone of it's kind. Then let us assert that a God exists in the intellect: this then, by the negation of God's existence, would be the negation of his infinitude, for God is henceforth limited by the physical, which shows that there is something greater than God, which via the first proposition is wholly absurd to think.

P3. Henceforth, since God cannot exist only in the intellect for that reduces the nature of his infinitude, then necessarily exists objectively.

This is basically your first argument with more fancy wording . Also why do you keep saying that if god wasn't real it would limit his power and that would be absurd. you say that twice " by the negation of God's existence, would be the negation of his infinitude, for God is henceforth limited by the physical, which shows that there is something greater than God" By the negation of gods existence he wouldn't exist, you seem to be saying if he didn't exist it would limit his power.

This is literally just saying I exist so there must be something omnipresent. Then even if that's true you assume it's good therefore you saying because god is omnipresent he must exist. You can't start with the assumption that god exists if you seek to prove his existence.

P1. This is ultimately the most controversial premiss of this argument, for idealism is still an important influence in many societies, and especially on this website. Then let us first assert that we can "doubt" that we exist. This doubt then necessarily leads to an object that doubts of the existence of the object, and it would be wholly circular to say "I think that I do not exist" for then this "I" would not exist to doubt the existence of this "I" too. Hence, it follows that "I" exist, and that is certain. I shall not attempt to prove the existence of other minds, as I do not see that as especially needed in this debate. [2]

P2. Then let us assert that something omnipresent does not exist: then analytically, the object would not be omnipresent. Hence, our existence would necessarily be included in a being that is omnipresent.

P3. This is developed from the definition of God

P4. Henceforth, the existence of God can be implied.
Ok so in premise two you say that we will assert that something omnipresent doesn't exist then say that if a object isn't omnipresent it's not omnipresent. Yeah that's kinda of the point. Then you say we be included in something omnipresent which is just a assumption you don't bother to prove. Then you just assume god exists.

P1. Everything has a first cause
P2. The first cause is God

This is getting painful. You say that there must be a first cause which you don't prove then say that the first cause must be god. Even if we accept your first premise you're conclusion isn't justified because you don't prove that the first cause is god.

P1. Conceive a thing that does not have a cause, except for the first cause: that is impossible. Henceforth, it must be argued that something must have caused everything, including casaulity. For how can something come from nothing, if the necessary tools for something "coming into existence" has not been made yet. Hence, we can necessarily denote that something must have caused everything.

P2. This is analytical from the definition of God.

Ok so in premise one you say something can't come from nothing. So where did god come from? If you're going to say that god always existed then why is it less valid to say he universe always existed? and again in premise two even if we accept your first premise is true you don't prove the first cause must be god.

The opposition's premiss are basically the following: that since, due to the ignorance of the definitions of God that I have provided, my argument is wholly invalid. I do not see any validity, or any trace of soundness in the opposition's arguments: he asserts that Big Foot exist, for it would be absurd to deny the existence of Big Foot. That is not my argument in a nutshell. For it would only be absurd to deny the existence of Big Foot if existence implies quality "x" that fits into the definition of "Big Foot". Nevertheless, the arguments presented are not even considered by the opposition clearly. Firstly, "infinity' is not defined by the Arabic word akbar or the "greatest" in this sense. Infinity is here defined as something that cannot "be limited by things that share its kind". Hence, the negation of God's existence would necessarily prove that God is finite for the following reason: that since God does not exist in the physical world and only the intellect, then God would necessarily be finite, for there are things that have greater "essence" than that of God, and via the definition of God, that is wholly absurd.

Henceforth, this refutation is based wholly upon a misunderstanding of what is meant by "God" and "infinitude" by taking the worthless Christian assumptions that we are talking about the monotheistic Christian God, which is wholly absurd.

b.) Refutation of Argument from Existence

This is, again, led by a grave misunderstanding of what is meant by "God". Again, God's definition is a "omnipresent being that has infinite essence". But let us take this misunderstanding into account: if the opposition thinks that I start from the assumption that God exist to prove God's existence, then the opposition is willing to affirm the following: that the opposition IS God, for I clearly start with the assumption of the existence of ONESELF, not of GOD. Firstly, the opposition does not seem to get the definition of this term omnipresent: "omnipresence" means the act of being present everywhere. "Everywhere" includes now, here, there: omnipresence is the essence of reality. So either the opposition is willing to argue that the opposition does not exist in reality: for he is denying that there are some being who do not exist in the essence of reality, which is wholly absurd. With the assumption that something omnipresent must exist, as has already been proven, then as omnipresence is an attribute of God, God must exist. So far, I see only refutations of the existence of a CHRISTIAN God, not the GOD of this debate.

INTERMISSION:

a.) Arugments from a Material Universe

P1. There exists a thing that has infinite essenceP2. God has infinite essenceP3. God exists

P1.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered something interesting about the universe which revolutionized the world forever. He found out that since several extra-galactical nebulaes were moving away from the earth, the universe must be moving. He observed for days, and eventually found out that the further an object is from earth, that is the proportional distance that the object moves away from earth. This phenomena was already predicted in Einstein's General Relativity, and now, with observational a posteriori moving, Mr. Hubble discovered that the universe was indeed expanding. What does this say about the essence of the universe? It says that the essence of the universe is not defined: it says that the essence of the universe is indeed infinite. Universal expansion continues to this day, and shall continue until the end of time. [1]

P2.

It is indeed very hard to philosophize empirical theories, but that is exactly what I intend to do. Soon after the discovery of the Big Bang by Georges Lemaître, the Pope held this as evidence for Genesis I. For the sake of our debate, I shall dismiss these claims and talk about the God in this debate: if something that is defined as one of the qualities of God existed, that would henceforth prove the existence of a God. We defined in R1 that God had "infinite" essence, and we have already proven that the universe has infinite essence. [1]

P3.

In denying this, the opposition will be turned into a more idealistic position: i.e. he denies that the universe exists, and he only exists as the maker of a posteriori experience, in which would henceforth be delusional. For since God has infinite attributes, and the Universe has infinite attributes, we could automatically conclude that the Universe and God are one in all: there is nothing extra-universal about God, for God is the universe.

However, let us take the assumption that the universe is not infinite, but indeed finite.

This is a model of the "three shapes" of the universe. There are three possibilities: either (a) the universe has a value Ω > 1, which makes it positively curved (first-model), in which the case the universe will keep expanding, but it will not get larger. Or (b) the universe has a value of Ω < 1, which makes it finite, as it will expand so much that it will internally collapse. This makes the universe finite. Or (c), in which the universe has a value of Ω = 1, in which case the universe is flat, and shall expand forever. The alpha values measures the density of the universe at the first moment of the Big Bang. With this, we can say that the universe is indeed flat, for universal expansion is not constant: under the Flat Universe theory, after the period of universal inflation, the rate of universal expansion will slow down due to the effects of gravity, then eventually speed up. We now know that this theory is indeed true, for the universe seems to be expanding faster than it was. [2,3]

Hence this diagram is apparently satisfied. But how does this relate to the debate? For several reasons: (a) that God is defined as something that has infinite essence, and that since the universe has infinite essence (and it exists), we can conclusively say that the universe and God are one and the same, and (b) that since the opposition has called for empirical a posteriori evidence, here, I have proven to you so, that a God exists.

REFUTATIONS:

c.) First-Cause Argument

Here, the opposition thinks that the opposition has indeed done a good job of denying the existence of a God, but indeed, what the opposition has done is affirmed it. This is done for two reasons indeed: (a) that since God is defined as a the causer of everything, then if the universe (which I assume he deems caused everything) caused everything, then he has indeed proven that God indeed exists. And even if you don't buy that, then (b) we have proven that a flate-universe makes has infinite essence, which correlates with the definition of God, henceforth God exists (as God and the Universe is all in the same thing). An uncaused first cause has to exist, and no matter what name you call it (the universe, quantum flunctuations), the accepted the definitions of this says that "God" is the uncaused first cause. [5]CONCLUSIONS:

From this, we can indeed conclude that all refutations provided by the opposition has ignored the definitions, and are henceforth invalidated. Apart from this, we can indeed conclude that the definitions of God, and the physical evidence that exists, shows that the God must exist, even if we take the physicalist or the idealist explanations of the universe to be sound/valid. Henceforth, the resolution is affirmed.

Lets start with your first paragraph. First you say several times I assumed we are talking about the christian god of the bible, please point me to where I ever said that. You said in your first sentence that I was ignorant of your definition of god. You defined god as , I shall understand God as a omnipresent being that has infinite essence, and is the first-cause of everything. That is the definition of god I was working under I don't know why you think I wasn't. You say "For it would only be absurd to deny the existence of God if existence implies quality "x" that fits into the definition of God" What quality of existence implies god? If you're going to say existence it self, or nature we have explanations for why those things exist. If it's not one of those you were referencing what was it? Also you said infinity is defined as "something that cannot "be limited by things that share its kind" I would like to know what dictionary yo got that from. According to dictionary.com infinity means "the quality or state of being infinite." Again you say the negation of gods existence would prove that god is finite. actually for the second time the negation of gods existence would say that god doesn't exist. Again according to dictionary.com the definition of negation is "something that is without existence; nonentity".

Again you say that god must exist because in order for there to be existence there must be something omnipresent in order for things to exist which is simply unfounded. And again even if that's true why must it necessarily be a god. Why not a blueberry muffin. That more believable then god. I've seen evidence that a blueberry muffin existences, I've never seen evidence that god exist.

Ok your first premise hasn't been proven so we can dismiss that. Plus even if there was something infinite why must it be god?

With your universe diagrams you says several things.
1. "the universe is expanding"
2. "It's expanding faster then ever" I
3. The universe has infinite essence and so does god so god must exist.

Premise 1 is true
Premise 2 isn't quit true. It's expanding faster then it has in a long time but when the big bang first happened it expanded faster then it is now.
Premise 3 Actually with some simple reasoning we can say the universe isn't infinite. The universe is expanding but if the universe is expanding which we have proven it can't be infinite because it has to expand into something which means it has a end that it's growing into. If it has a end it's not infinite by definition.

In your first cause argument you say that god must be the uncaused cause. Yo say he must exist because the universe is infinite and so is god so god must exist. The universe isn't infinite I already showed that. Plus you said anything that is the first cause must be god and god is the universe. So you say god always existed. So what caused god? If your saying god always existed why could the universe have always existed. You make it sound like yo think the universe is god. If that's the case your just putting a extra label on the universe and calling it god. If that is the case then your just calling the universe god and there's not much to debate except the extra label. Is this what you believe? If not what is your religion?

As for your conclusion I've debunked all of that you're just restating what you've already said. Also just to make it clear I'm not ignorant of your definition of god it's the same one I'm using.

Firstly, if the definition of God were to be accepted, then it should be fairly clear that the argument presented is analytically sound: for the negation of the existence in essence would mean that since we exist in essence, we are greater than the defined God, which is, via definition, wholly absurd. Clearly, this argument goes on to claim that I use only a priori proofs to prove the existence of God: "we have no proof that God exists". Clearly, that is a fallacy of ignorance, and this argument is logically invalid. Apart from this, the commonly accepted definition of infinite, was already given: the quality of being unable to be limited by another thing consisting of the same attributes (for the definition of finite is given: "A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body", hence infinite would be the complete opposite of this).

The negation of God would henceforth prove that God is finite, for the following reason (which was wholly ignored when presented in R2): that since there are things which occupy essence, and the negation of the existence of God implies that God does not occupy essence, we are literally saying that things which occupy essence (this computer, this flute etc.) have greater values than that of God, which is wholly absurd because God is the most infinite, and hence cannot be limited by things that have essence within God.

b.) Defending the Argument of Existence

I am asked two questions: where is the empirical evidence that God exists, and why must it necessarily be God? Note that the opposition has said that in using these arguments, he is not ignoring the definition of God. THEN via virtue of this fact, he should note that God is defined as an omnipresent being. So why is it necessarily God? Because God was defined in that manner. Secondly, I am asked to provide empirical a posteriori evidence for the existence of God. Then that view needs defending, for as proven, it is argementum ad ignoratium and is by no essence valid, much less sound.

c.) Defending Universe Argument

Let us note here the contradictions of the opposition's arguments: he demands for a posteriori empirical proofs, yet gives none. He uses pure reason, based upon false premises, to refute the empirical arguments I have given. The style and methodology of this is no different from Berkeley's refutation of Newtonian principles, overlooked by scientists and not considered empirically valid, even though Berkeley was a empiricist. Perhaps it is also not much different from the various comments made on the comments section of this debate.

Nevertheless, the opposition shows that, with methods of pure reason alone (not even built upon any axioms of nature), that the universe is not infinite. His proof goes along these lines: the Universe is not the only thing that exists, and in existence, another thing that combines essence exists extra-universally, and henceforth, our universe is going to be collide with this universe, causing the end of the universe as we know it today. What empirical basis does he have to show that something exists outside this universe? The multiverse theory, the only theory that asserts that something outside the universe exists, states that there is no way in which this universe could collide with the other universe, as it "exists" parallel to ours. But I challenge the opposition to show me proof that an extra-universal object that occupies matter exists: until he does this, this argumentation is wholly invalidated.

The opposition then goes on to strawman my case: he says that I once stated that the "universe is expanding faster than ever". Never did I say that: all I said was the universe was expanding faster than it was before, not "faster than ever". This strawman is accompanied by a ignoratio elenchi of my proofs that the universe is flat, henceforth infinite. For the flat universe theories predict that the universe would slightly slow down due to the effects of gravity, then increase due to the effects of this "dark energy": so hence, the universe is infinite upon these grounds. Hence, I rearticulate my argument:

What caused God? God is the cause of everything, inclusive of himself. That is what is said, analytically, from the definition of God. Again, the opposition raises no major contentions to my argument: I have proven that God and Universe are the same thing (this is proven via definition), and the opposition accepts my definitions, so henceforth, I do not think I have anything to refute here, except for some scattered remarks. This argument is filled with to be ad hominems: my faith does not make any relevance to this debate. I might as well by a Nobel Laureate Physicist, or a Christin theologian, or a Kindegarten School Teacher: makes no difference. The point is the contentions I raise: here the opposition says "what caused God?" I say he has always been there: then he says "isn't the universe eternal?" I have said the "universe is God": hence, what difference does it make? He attempts to refute my statement, but at the same time, he asserts it.

The resolution remains affirmed. My religion makes no revelance to this debate.

the negation of the existence of god in essence would mean that since we exist in essence, we are greater than the defined God, which is, via definition, wholly absurd.
I've explained 3 or 4 times now if we negated god's existence we wouldn't say we are greater then him, we don't believe in god. We also aren't greater then unicorns, because they don't exist. Your argument only makes sense if you have proved god exists but you have failed to do so your argument makes no sense.

Next you say because I've said you have provided no proof for god that is a fallacy from ignorance. Saying that is intellectually dishonest because you have provide no proof except for bad arguments that have been debunk not just by me, but by hundreds of people.

You're next argument

The negation of God would henceforth prove that God is finite, for the following reason (which was wholly ignored when presented in R2): that since there are things which occupy essence, and the negation of the existence of God implies that God does not occupy essence, we are literally saying that things which occupy essence (this computer, this flute etc.) have greater values than that of God, which is wholly absurd because God is the most infinite, and hence cannot be limited by things that have essence within God.

I already went over the first part about 5 times now. You're argument is that it's stupid to say that your computer and flute are greater then god. Which they wouldn't be if he was real, but again you haven't proved that and as specified in the first round you have the burden of proof to prove that god exists. A burden which you have failed to meet. All your arguments so far start with the assumption god exists, which if you seek to prove god you can't do. It's like me arguing that unicorns are the most powerful thing ever and it's stupid to believe anything else. Replace unicorns with god and we have a good summary of your argument.

Ok going into your second paragraph your defense as to why a omnipresent being would have to be god is defined that way. Ok so I will define unicorns as omnipresent and now it must be a unicorn. You would say that's stupid, but replace god and that's your argument. That's assuming anything is omnipresent which nothing is. Your second statement that me asking for proof of god is a appeal to ignorance makes no sense. If I said unicorns exist and you asked for proof would that be a appeal to ignorance? No but once again replace god and that's your argument.

Your next argument is that I'm using false premises to avoid your empirical arguments. First my premises aren't false and you have proved they are. Plus your Empirical arguments suck and have been debunked hundreds of times before.

your next argument was. Nevertheless, the opposition shows that, with methods of pure reason alone (not even built upon any axioms of nature), that the universe is not infinite. His proof goes along these lines: the Universe is not the only thing that exists, and in existence, another thing that combines essence exists extra-universally, and henceforth, our universe is going to be collide with this universe, causing the end of the universe as we know it today. What empirical basis does he have to show that something exists outside this universe? The multiverse theory, the only theory that asserts that something outside the universe exists, states that there is no way in which this universe could collide with the other universe, as it "exists" parallel to ours. But I challenge the opposition to show me proof that an extra-universal object that occupies matter exists: until he does this, this argumentation is wholly invalidated.

Wow can anyone say straw man. I said the universe is expanding and therefore not infinite. If the universe is infinite it couldn't expand. I can forgive this one though because pretty much no one understands this fully so I can forgive you missing this.

Next you say I straw maned you by saying you said the universe is expanding faster then ever. you did say that. "We now know that this theory is indeed true, for the universe seems to be expanding faster than it was. It's between to of your diagrams in the last round. Once again I will debunk this argument

P1. You haven't proven that.
p2. If he exists, but you haven't proven he does
P3. Invalid conclusion

Your final argument is that god caused himself. How? How did he do that. Again you say it's in the definition of god. This is irrelevant unless you can prove he exists which you haven't done. If you say god could cause it self, why couldn't the universe do that instead of god. The last thing you say is that I agreed with you that god and the universe are the same thing. I didn't say that and I don't agree with you. I asked if you believed that which you clearly do.

In your next argument please stop bring up the definition of god because that's irrelevant unless you prove him which you haven't.

well pro forfeited. This is very disappointing. I thought he would do his best to finish the debate strong. I was even hoping he might throw some good arguments and give me a real challenge. He will have a chance to debate again in round 5. This will be my last post for the debate. Hopefully my pro will make a argument in round 5 and not forfeit twice.

Again, I see myself saying the same things over and over again. The opposition seems to think that the negation of "God" simply means that "we do not believe in God". Belief in God, or the unbelief in God, is not the same logical proposition as saying the negation of God. Simple logical analysis could bring you to that conclusion: for example, the negation of God is represented by ~G, whilst the negation of "belief in God" is represented by x:~G. Hence clearly we can see that the opposition's arguments are pure ignoratio elenchi of the case presented. Let us then, from this, take an argument further up a step: for clearly, the opposition has either (a) chosen to not understand my case, or (b) chosen to misunderstand it for his own sake. GOD is infinite in essence. WE have essence. WE are finite, yet WE exist. If GODdoes not exist (~G) then WE would be more infinite than GOD, which is via definition ABSURD. Henceforth, GOD has to exist. It is not more than that: if hundreds of people have disproved this proof of God, then the opposition has done a horrible job of presenting such arguments.

Again, I consider this argument wholly supported, validated, and all refutations of it built upon this absurd misunderstanding of the concepts of God, existence, and infinitude, in which I have clearly articulated, hopefully.

b.) Universal ArgumentAgain, we catch the opposition using his a priori methods to disprove a posteriori arguments. He says many people have presented proofs against this argument: however, he presents no adequate one, except for his ingenious ad hominems (your empirical arguments suck) and his false reasoning. So, if the universe is expanding, then, via the logic of the opponent, it has to expand into something: what is, henceforth, this something which the universe should expand into? Really, where is the proof that such things exist? The mysticist methods of the opposition go against any atheism which he oughts to defend. Perhaps I shall prove again that the universe is infinite: again, the meaning of a flat universe is that we occupy a point on xy axis upon this universe. It is quite easy from there to deduce, using the axioms of Euclid's geometry, that the universe is infinite. If the edge of the universe were line AB and line BC, along with line DE and line EF, hence flat universe would state that these lines are parallel to each other, henceforth, they will never ever ever ever meet, not bringing the universe in a collision with itself. The evidence for flat universes are many. I'm not trained in scientific literature, hence I shall present one from what I know about falsification and henceforth. The flat universe predicts that the universe will initially expand at a large rate (cosmic inflation), then shall be slowed down by the force of gravity, and shall hence speed up again. We know that this is true. Hence, space is "two-dimensional" in a sense that it is flat (space-time can be 4-dimensional, we're talking about space here).

How does this make sense in the debate today? It is wholly easy. We know that the universe exist: we live in it. The Cosmos is all there ever be: there is nothing more than this cosmos, unless we take the mystical assumptions of the opposition. To negate is to negate materialism, which is not done so, henceforth the materialist assumption is taken: if the universe exists as infinite in essence, and this is what God was defined as, then the existence of the universe is the ultimate proof that God, as defined in the parameters of this debate, exists.

INTERMISSION:

c.) Fallacy Time!

"In your next argument please stop bring up the definition of god because that's irrelevant unless you prove him which you haven't." The opposition is trying to move the goal-post here: the definition of the terms of this debate is accepted by both sides, and this is proven by the fact that the opposition has not tried, even once, to provide a new definition. The definition of a debate term is essentially one of the most important part of any debate. If it is accepted, then it is what it is: do not try to change it, do not try to remove it, do not try to ignore it.

"Plus your Empirical arguments suck and have been debunked hundreds of times before." AHA! Ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, can also be interpreted as argument from authority. My empirical arguments suck? *teenage girly voice* Aha, excuse me! If my empirical arguments suck, then they are all still empirically and deductively valid: in the parameters of this debate, they are indeed still empirically valid: I have seen nogood refutation of it. The fact that it has been debunked a hundred times before makes no difference: present one-hundred debunks of my argumentations, then it will make a difference. No points were created, presented, or anything in this debate that reference 100 different refutations. And even if they have been, you seem to put a lot of faith (paradoxical for a fideistic atheist) in others. Do you conceive their argumentations? If not, then don't say since others did it a lot of times, they must be correct.

"We now know that this theory is indeed true, for the universe seems to be expanding faster than it was." -> "The universe is expanding faster than ever" Strawman. I say the universe was indeed expanding faster than it was, but not ever. IT WAS was an allusion to the slowing down effects of gravity.

"I've explained 3 or 4 times now if we negated god's existence we wouldn't say we are greater then him, we don't believe in god." Ignoratio elenchi. Come on! I don't care if you believe in God or not: I only care about your reasons! Anything that cannot be proven can be dismissed without evidence. The law of Hitchens: you know that perfectly well.

END OF INTERMISSION

d.) Argument from First Cause

I do not see any valid objections raised to this: the opposition says "existence" comes before "definition". But what is a man? A rational animal, no? So if a man is a rational animal, then everyone on this website is a man: the argumentation here is given, and is proven. Definition of an existing thing comes before existence, for it would be categorized in something different: I do not need to prove synthetically that God exists in this argument, as it is analytical that God does from this first cause argument. Again, no good refutation: apart from this, I have proven that God is the universe, and the opposition says "why could the universe not be eternal if God is?" Is that not a mere validation of my case?

Again, I leave here with my arguments fully supported.

e.) Arguments from Omnipresence

If unicorns were defined as something omnipresent, then please, they exist. It is analytical. Again, no good objection against this: it is still wholly supported.

VOTING ISSUES:

a.) The opposition decides to accept my debate definition, yet decides to then betray it and to stop referring to the definition. Good debaters know that definitions are the law of the debate: it is the constitution and the essence of the debate.

b.) Fallacies are all-over the opposition's case. He has ignored my case, and has gone on rambling about his conclusions derived from a priori methods that he has previously dismissed, and claims that "hundreds of people" are behind him (who?).

c.) Ad hominem. Due to time constraints, this is all I am able to do. VOTE PRO!

Kc1999 Apologizing for my unfair comments does not mean I lose. Just because people believe different things than you does not give you the right to be a prick. I most certainly did not lose the "fight"- atheists will win in the end when Christ does not return.

Ok buddy you keep thinking that; whatever floats your boat. If you dislike god so much, stop talking about Him. If you don't believe in Him, stop trying to debate His existence. Let the believers believe and you all stay lost in science and evolution. Simple as that.